Appendix 1: Authentication and Electronic Signatures in Net HaMishpat
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/2026-07-17-appendix-1.html
Index of Appendices and Biosketch - Joseph Zernik, PhD, LLB
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appeal-for-review-of-rachel-ben-aris.html
Appeal filed with Technion President and VERA Chair to review Rachel Ben-
Ari's competence as their Legal Counsel -- English, Deutsch, עברית
https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/2026-07-17-technion-israel-institute-of.html
By Joseph Zernik, PhD, LLB
Biosketch
.
.
Authentication and electronic signatures
Over the past quarter century, the Israeli justice system has experienced systematic dismantling of authentication mechanisms, which developed over centuries to prevent fraud in the courts.
(a) Certify the opening of an authentic court file
Historically, that was the purpose of the summons and its special procedures of personal service and return and filing of proof of service.
In Israel in general the summons was degraded to almost nothing. On 11.9.2024, Judge Hila Gurevitz rendered in EF 11650-06-12 an opus on the subject of Summons, explaining why it was unnecessary
(b) Judge's assignment to court files.
The judges insist on keeping the assignment vague and ambiguous. In other nations, a judge acting with no authority in a court file may end in criminal prosecution of such a judge.
In AP 1829-06-10, Judge Hila Gurevitz appeared for almost 2 years with no authority, while the case was lawfully assigned to Judge Revital Baum.
In EF 11650-06-24, the fictitious court process, her assignment data in Net HaMishpat appear invalid. Her responses to requests for explanation appeared deceptive.
(c) Counsel's Power of Attorney
Attorneys appear routinely without valid Power of Attorney. The trend appears particularly strong among attorneys representing the banks.
In the affair at hand;
In EF 11650-06-24 - the fictitious court process, Attorney Yoav Salomon has filed the process without a valid Power of Attorney. Salomon has appeared without a valid Power of Attorney ever since. Judge Hila Gurevitz adamantly refuses to enforce the law and have him file a Power of Attorney. It appears important to her to have no Power of Attorney on file for Salomon, since his appearance without a Power of Attorney helps keep the process invalid.
(d) Affidavits
Filing an affidavit by Requester (Plaintiff) is required for filing a request for appointment of estate administrator.
The initial pleading in EF 11650-06-24 - the fictitious court process - was filed without the Requester's affidavit.
According to the Succession Law, 5725-1965, and the Succession Regulations, 5758-1998
(e) Estate Administrators appointment records - Attorneys Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon have no valid appointment records as Estate Administrators, and they are aware of that.
It appears that the forgery of appointment records, and impersonation of Estate Administrators by attorneys are a common fraud. The law set a secure authentication method for the appointment records forwarded to the Guardian General -- they must be served by the Office of the Clerk.
It appears that with both Estate Administrator and with Guardians, judges and attorneys create "informal" appointments, which are not reported to the Administrator General.
In parallel, the Administrator General appears uninterested in performing its original purpose. Under the guise of "reducing bureaucracy" they eliminated the regulatory controls previously exerted on vast number of cases. Now the Heirs, or the Conservatees are on their own.
The language of the law did not spell out that the burden of supervision is on the heirs. However, that is the explicit interpretation that is provided on the Administrator General's website.
(f) The Guardian General - has never received a notice of Estate Administrators' appointment from the office of the Clerk of the Court, as required after authentic appointment. Therefore, Attorneys Ben-Ari and Salomon are not formally recognized as Estate Administrators either. And yet, the Guardian General, a State agency that is supposed to prevent financial fraud in Estate administration, accepted into some indeterminate status a paper titled "Estate Inventory Report" by Estate Administrators Ben-Ari and Salomon, that was filed outside the filing procedures provided by law.
(g) Estate Administrators identification in communications - the Succession Regulations, 5758-1998, prescribe that Estate Administrators must identify themselves as such in every communication and transaction they perform. Attorney Rachel Ben-Ari and Yoav Salomon routinely fail to do so. When asked to instruct them to keep the provisions of the Regulations, Judge Gurevitz refused to do so, claiming it was not part of her job...
(h) Service of court records - recently, Deputy Clerk Keren Peles stopped serving Judge Hila Gurevitz's decisions; Mr Yoav Salomon of unknown designation in this court file is serving decisions instead.
(i) Electronic signatures - signatures were employed for ages as the fundamental authentication instrument. In Net HaMishpat, since court files and court records were all of electronic type, electronic signatures were required [see additional details in Appendix 29: A Short Letter to Detainee Amir Melamed, re: authentication and electronic signatures in the Israeli courts, https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-29.html]
Round 1 Electronic Signatures
Electronic signatures have been employed in Net HaMishpat since its introduction to the courts in 2010. The 1st Round of implementation was based on a signed SGN file enveloping the actual court record. It was required when uploading files to Net HaMishpat and when opening files served by email by Net HaMishpat.
In 2011, in the Judge Varda Alshech Protocol Affair, electronic signatures became the central issue. Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision 88/12/Tel Aviv District (May 31, 2012), in re: Judge Varda Alshech, provided a short review of the issue [Appendix 2]. The decision provided a representation/misrepresentation that certified electronic signatures, in compliance with the Israeli Electronic Signature Law, 5761-2001, were implemented in Net HaMishpat. However, it noted that litigants, their counsel, and the public at large had no way to distinguish between signed and unsigned documents in Net HaMishpat.
At the same time, the Ombudsman, Judge Varda Alshech, and the Administration of the Courts were all in agreement: A judicial record in Net HaMishpat that is not lawfully signed using an electronic signature pursuant to the Electronic Signature Law, 5761-2001, is a "Draft", void, has no force and effect, and is not a court record at all.
The fraudulent aspect of such setup was that Judge Varda Alshech was not held accountable for alleged fraud, which she perpetrated by issuing and unsigned "Draft" protocol, while the recipients had no way to tell it was a "Draft," an invalid record.
By 2015, Dr. Zernik had repeatedly demonstrated that the purported electronic signatures in Net Hamishpat were not in compliance with the Electronic Signature Law, 5761-2001.
The Legal Context: The validation materials gathered in 2018 represent "Round 1" of the electronic signature implementation. In late 2018, the Electronic Signature Law was amended (Amendment 3). This amendment was structurally interpreted by the Administration of j to alter the narrative—shifting from a strict mandate for certified electronic signatures on legal records to a claim that secure electronic signatures are sufficient to kosher Net HaMishpat documents. In reality, to this day, neither certified nor legally compliant secure electronic signatures exist within the operational reality of Net HaMishpat.
No Identifiable Judge's Signature: There is no electronic signature of an identified judge in decisions in Net HaMishpat, certainly there are not three signatures of three identified judges in a three-judge panel, and there is no identification of the time of signing.
Hidden Implementation & Opacity: In an electronic file hidden from the eyes of the litigants and the public, an "electronic mark" appears, which is supposedly the "electronic signature" of the judge/s. This electronic file reaches the hands of a litigant only in the rare cases of electronic service via email using the "electronic service application" in Net HaMishpat. In these cases, the recipient receives an "electronic envelope" containing two electronic files: a PDF file of the judicial document itself (unsigned), and a file that is supposedly the "electronic signature." A file of the supposed "electronic signature" does not appear in every case. There are cases where no file of a supposed "electronic signature" exists at all...
Not a Lawful Signature: The "electronic mark" attached to decisions and judgments in Net HaMishpat does not fall within the scope of a "signature" at all. It contains no identification of the signer, and it contains no documentation of the time of signing. This situation enables the issuance of "fabricated" judicial records, as well as the post facto modification of judicial records by anonymous entities.
The Ominous Signing Entity (Israeli Courts Authority): The "electronic mark," routinely attached to judicial records in Net HaMishpat, is created using a supposed "signature device" issued by an anonymous entity that is completely unrecognized by Israeli law – ISRAELI COURTS AUTHORITY. This electronic mark is produced using a signature device (a hardware device) held under the ownership of that same anonymous entity itself—ISRAELI COURTS AUTHORITY— and not under the ownership of any identified individual, contrary to the requirements of an electronic signature.
Image | Validating the electronic signature of a judicial record, using Comsign validation tool. Comsign is in agreement with the Israeli Bar Association for supplying signing instruments to the members of the Bar.
Schematic diagram of the "electronic mark" linked to decisions and judgments in Net HaMishpat, as examined by the dedicated software of the Bar Association during the initial audit phase:
"Verification Information: The root certificate of the certification authority is untrusted..."
"This signature device was issued by: Israeli Courts Authority"
In real, certified electronic signatures, the name of a certifying authority recognized by law, such as COMSIGN or PERSONAL ID, would appear here. In electronic signatures that are not certified under Israeli law, the name of a recognized entity in the field of electronic signatures, such as ADOBE corporation, would appear here. No lawful Certifying Authority, named —Israeli Courts Authority—exists in Israel. It took a Freedom of Information request and a petition in court, before the Administration of Courts admitted that there was no government etity named Israeli Courts Authority. It was only a moniker.
"This signature device is held by: Israeli Courts Authority"
In real, certified electronic signatures, a person's name would appear here, such as "Yitzhak Ben Avraham," who is the lawful holder of the signature device, who is authorized to operate the signature device by entering a password, and who is the signer. No authority by this name—ISRAELI COURTS AUTHORITY—is defined by statute in Israel.
Validity of the signature device: This signature device is valid from 01.01.2000 until 01.01.2099.
In real electronic signatures, the validity of the signature device is limited to a relatively short period, usually 3–5 years. The issuance of a signature device to a person, particularly in his capacity as a government official (a judge), for 100 years is patently defective.
* There was no identifiable human signer; there was no identifiable, valid Certifying Authority.
* Both the Signer and the Certifying Authority were "Israeli Courts Authority."
* It took Freedom of Information requests and petitions to get the Administration of Courts to admit: "There is no government entity by this name, it's just a moniker."
* The time noted in such signatures as the signing time was unrelated to the time that the decision or judgment record had been rendered. It was the time that the record was emailed to the user from Net HaMishpat.
* Such signatures generated an alarm notice of invalidity by the two Israeli electronic signature validation instruments - Comsign and PersonalID.
It should be noted that the above-outlined features were only found in judges' purported electronic signatures. Electronic signatures of attorneys and others were valid by the same examinations.
By 2016, Dr. Zernik had received an unexpected invitation to a meeting with Prof. Danny Dolev at the Hebrew University Department of Computer Science. In the short meeting, Prof. Dolev explained that he had been a consultant to the Israeli government since the 1990s in its projects for computerization of government. Prof. Dolev reaffirmed Dr Zernik's observations regarding the invalidity of the electronic signatures in Net HaMishpat. However, Prof. Dolev explained that the situation is prevalent throughout the various branches of government. There are no valid electronic signatures on electronic Israeli government records. He summarized it as a permanent situation, where there is no difference between a "Draft" and a "Formal, valid record" in Israeli electronic records.
Round 2 Electronic Signatures
In early 2023, the 2nd Round of electronic signatures implementation was launched. The time-consuming, complicated methods for filing or receiving records from Net HaMishpat in the 1st Round were abandoned overnight.
The new routine involves the optional downloading of PDF files bearing electronic signatures from Net HaMishpat. The 2nd Round electronic signatures are purportedly "secure" but not "certified," contrary to the 1st Round's claim. This change is intended to align with the change introduced by Amendment 3 to the Electronic Signature Law, 5761-2001, which became effective in 2018.
The original Electronic Signature Law, 5761-2001, required a certified electronic signature on electronic records, anywhere a signature was required by law. Amendment 3 relaxed that rigid requirement: The decision on whether a "certified" or "secured" electronic signature was required in a given application depended on the purpose of the signature and the nature of the application.
The Administration of the Courts determined that "secured" electronic signatures were sufficient for judicial records in Net HaMishpat.
Analysis of the use of electronic signatures on the October 9, 2024, "Protocol" and "Judgment" 2-page record.
1. Overall view of the document and its content
The following are images of a 2-page record, titled "Protocol" and dated October 9, 2024. It was hand-delivered after the hearing, so its contents were not known during the hearing - specifically, the contents of the "Decision' at the top of the page, regarding the intent of running a hearing with no written protocol, only a voice recording, and the claim that it was lawful, permitted pursuant to a "pilot".
After the hearing, when I got the "Protocol", I filed with judge Gurevitz a request to see the written source of the "Pilot' court procedures. She had none. It is a typical Gurevitz reckless mendacity - lying about court procedures. Obviously, such conduct can be maintained only on the background of a court with hardly any fixed court procedures, particularly as related to Net HaMishpat.
It took all the way to mid-December, 2024, before I got a legal position by the Administration of the Courts on the issue of "pilot' and 'protocols.' As expected, it turned out the opposite of what Gurevitz had said. The letter and work instruction are copied below.
Later, Judge Gurevitz noted in a decision denying disqualification for a cause, that she announced it ahead of the hearing, that it was going to be a hearing with no written protocol, "as can be clearly heard in the recording and as is noted in the Transcript". and that no one objected. Therefore there was consent... (another instance of fraudulent consent).
This was an amazing lie, since there is nothing like that either in the recording or the Transcript.
The bottom line was that Judge Gurevitz decided to run and "off-the-record", informal hearing, i.e., not a court hearing at all. At the same time, she wanted others to accept it as a lawful hearing of a court of the state of Israel.
This is a classic example of a simulated court process.
The content of the document and its significance and lack of validity are discussed in detail in the following Appendices:
Appendix 9 | October 9, 2024, event at the Haifa Court https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-9-what-was-event-of-october-9.html |
Appendix 15
| Central to the fraud - simulated court records in Net HaMishpat: 1. Invalid "Protocol", and 2. Invalid Psikta https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-15-central-to-fraud-simulated.html |
Appendix 16 | Fake "Consent" is central to the fraud https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-16-fake-consent-is-central-to.html |
Appendix 18 | Rachel Ben-Ari and the 2nd revocation of Respondent's legal personhood https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-18-rachel-ben-ari-and-2nd.html |
Appendix 19 | Rachel Ben-Ari and the 3rd revocation of Respondent's legal personhood https://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2026/07/appendix-19-rachel-ben-ari-and-3rd.html |
Haifa Family Court
Family Succession File 11650-06-24 Zernik v. Zernik et al.
October 09, 2024
Before: Honorable Judge Hila Gurevitz Ovadia
In the matter of: The Estate of the deceased Rivka Zernik
Applicant: Joseph Zernik
v.
Respondents:
Uri Zernik
Dror Zernik
Present:
Applicant's counsel: Attorney Shelly Bar
Applicant: In person
Respondent 1's counsel: Yoav Solomon
Respondent 1: No appearance
Respondent 2's counsel: Attorney Rahel Ben-Ari
Respondent 2: No appearance
PROTOCOL
DECISION
Within the framework of a pilot program being conducted by the court system and pursuant to Section 68A of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, I hereby order that the proceeding shall be recorded via audio recording. The recording shall be made available to the parties on Net HaMishpat website. The parties may order a transcript of the recording to the extent they are interested in doing so via Net HaMishpat website. The parties shall not bear the cost of the recording or the transcript to the extent that a transcript is ordered by the court.
Given and announced today, 7 Tishrei 5785, 09/10/2024, in the presence of those attending.
(Signature)
Hila Gurevitz Ovadia, Judge
After a recess.
(Note: The page contains a diagonal background watermark reading "איסור פרסום" / "Publication Prohibited", as well as stamps at the bottom including a certified true copy stamp and an electronic signature badge.)
Haifa Family Court
Family Succession File 11650-06-24 Zernik v. Zernik et al.
October 09, 2024
JUDGMENT
The agreement of the parties as detailed in the protocol, together with the clarifications, is given the force of a judgment.
The Secretariat shall close the case file.
Given and announced today, 7 Tishrei 5785, 09/10/2024, in the presence of those attending.
(Signature)
Hila Gurevitz Ovadia, Judge
After a recess.
DECISION
The agreement of the parties is given the force of a decision.
The estate administrators shall submit within 14 days a formal order for my signature so that it can be presented to Third Party C, together with a bond of guarantee as required by the Regulations for Appointment of Estate Administrators. The wording of the order shall be drafted in agreement between the estate administrators and Attorney Elinor Leibovitch, and in the absence of agreement, the estate administrators shall submit the requested text together with the response received from Attorney Leibovitch.
Regarding the additional agreements, since both attorneys hold two roles: a role as representatives and a role as joint estate administrators, within the same timeframe, the estate administrators shall submit the agreement of those entitled to the agreements discussed in the hearing.
The Secretariat shall schedule a follow-up.
Given and announced today, 7 Tishrei 5785, 09/10/2024, in the presence of those attending.
(Signature)
Hila Gurevitz Ovadia, Judge
Typed by Ram Keiz
(Page 2)
(Note: The page contains a diagonal background watermark reading "איסור פרסום" / "Publication Prohibited", as well as a green "Certified True Copy" stamp at the bottom-left).
...
. (b)
(2) Adobe Reader
Adobe Reader could not validate the electronic signature on the Prototocl/Judgment record.
Images | (a) 2021 Online notice by the Administration of the Courts: introducing the automatic "True Copy of the Original" certification.
Translation
"Digital Signature "True to the Original" on Records Produced in Net HaMishpat
A "certified true copy" confirmation is a legal certification attesting that a photocopy or copy of a document is identical and fully matches the original document. If you wish to generate a document from the "Net HaMishpat" system, the document will be automatically signed upon printing with a "Certified True Copy" digital signature that includes a unique serial number for that specific copy. A document bearing a certified true copy stamp can be downloaded from the "Net HaMishpat" system.
Type: Information Subject: Net HaMishpat Publication Date: 28.04.2021 Update Date: 23.11.2025
For your convenience, full and detailed information on this topic is attached as a file at the bottom of this page."
https://www.gov.il/he/pages/law_net_digital_signature
...
Translation
"Certified True Copy" Digital Signature on Documents Generated from "Net HaMishpat" System
A document bearing a "certified true copy" stamp can be downloaded from the "Net HaMishpat" system.
A "certified true copy" confirmation is a legal certification attesting that a photocopy or copy of a document is identical and fully matches the original document.
If you wish to generate a document from the Net HaMishpat system, the document will be automatically signed upon printing with a digital "certified true copy" signature that includes a unique serial number for that specific copy.
Example of a digital 'Certified True Copy' stamp:
Structure of the stamp:
Top section: The name of the court in which the case is being conducted.
Bottom section: A serial number automatically stamped onto the document by the Net HaMishpat system, authenticating that the document is true to the original document.
The stamp will be produced in purple (if printed on a color printer).
In the case of a multi-page document – the stamp will be applied in a "fan" arrangement across every 4 pages, at varying heights.
The new routine involves the optional downloading of PDF files bearing electronic signatures from Net HaMishpat. The 2nd Round electronic signatures are purportedly "secure" electronic signatures, but not "certified" electronic signatures as purported in the 1st Round. This change is supposed to match the change that was introduced in Amendment 3 to the Electronic Signature Law, 5761-2001, which became effective in 2018.
In parallel, an automatic "True Copy of the Original" certification was introduced, and the Administration of the Courts has switched to referring to court records as "digitally signed," while there is no "digital signature" defined by Israeli law.
The situation is incredible.
Net HaMishpat was introduced in the courts in 2010.
By 2011, the Judge Varda Alshech Affair erupted, which was directly related to invalid electronic signatures. However, an elaborate Ombudsman of the Judiciary Decision 88/12/Tel Aviv District [see, Appendix 2] made false representation that the system had valid secure electronic signatures implemented for the judges, in compliance with the law. It was purportedly only some error on the part of Judge Varda Alshech, which caused the mishap.
It is a nation that is a leading cyber warfare power. with 8200 'the best cyber/tech school in the world,"...
And yet, for over 15 years, the judiciary can play this "King's new clothes"/Shell game fraud on the people and the world?
It is enough to run any judicial record through one's choice of validation tool - e.g., the U.S. Adobe, the E.U. online validation tool, or Israeli Comsign. The results are the same:
פרק 4, סעיף 1:
"אמון מלא ואשראי מלאים (Full Faith and Credit) יינתנו בכל מדינה לחקיקה, לרשומות (Records) ולהליכים השיפוטיים של כל מדינה אחרת. והקונגרס רשאי, באמצעות חוקים כלליים, לקבוע את האופן שבו יוכחו אמיתותם ותוקפם של החוקים, הרשומות וההליכים כאמור."
No Statutory Compliance: Furthermore – There is no secure electronic signature, or certified electronic signature under the Electronic Signature Law, of a judge or judges on decisions and judgments in Net HaMishpat. The "electronic mark" installed in respect of judicial records in Net HaMishpat cannot be considered an "electronic signature" of any specific, identifiable person. Certainly not a certified electronic signature of any person.
Moreover, the timestamp on judicial records' signatures is always the time of service, even when decisions and judgments were served by the courts years after those records had been rendered. Therefore, such signatures cannot be used to determine that no changes had been introduced in the records since they were nnin The software programs of the two recognized certified authorities under the Electronic Signature Law, 2001(Comsign and PersonalID) do not recognize this "electronic mark" as a valid signature, and they flag a warning notice regarding it.
Asymmetry Between Judges and Attorneys: It must be emphasized that this state of affairs exists only regarding judges' signatures. For attorneys utilizing Net HaMishpat, lawfully certified electronic signatures have been installed. The failure to install real electronic signatures for judges in Net HaMishpat is even more striking when compared to the electronic signatures of attorneys who choose to submit documents via electronic filing. For attorneys, valid signature devices are issued (by the Comsign company), and their electronic signatures are certified electronic signatures, valid and compliant with the law.
Secrecy & Lack of a User's Manual: The system is maintained under a heavy veil of secrecy – which is inconsistent with the principle of "transparency of the adjudication process." As part of that same administrative mindset, a User's Manual has never been written to this day. This is a system whose development has certainly crossed the threshold of NIS 1 billion, which has been in use for over 15 years, and whose operation is required of thousands of civil servants day in and day out. It is unreasonable at this stage that this is an oversight or forgetfulness. It is more reasonable to assume that at a relatively early stage, a principled decision was made not to write a User's Manual.
A Code of Silence: A code of silence has emerged – there is no public discourse in the legal community regarding the anomalous situation in the courts in general, and in Net HaMishpat in particular. I was able to discuss it with an older, close to retirement litigating attorney. He openly admitted that he could not understand the record transactions taking place during the proceedings.
The Position of the Administration of the Courts: The position of the Administration of the Courts, as it was conveyed to Dr. Zernik in a Freedom of Information response in 2025, "There is no need" for a review of Net HaMishpat. If a preliminary review is conducted that indicates a real and immediate need for a comprehensive review, the university heads may be in a unique position to promote a solution to the situation. Given their consistent support for the judges and the Attorney General, the university heads could be the mediators who promote genuine rectification in the justice system.
החלטת השופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה על בקשת עיון בחתימות אלקטרוניות על החלטותיה
בתגובה לבקשת העיון בחתימות האקלטרוניות על החלטותיה, השופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה החליטה
כדלהלן:
"בקשתו של המבקש היא לצלם את מסך תיקיית ההחלטות כפי שהיא נצפה במזכירות. בקשה זו יש להפנות למזכירות שתפעל על פי נהליה".
ההחלטה מיום 15.1.2025 דחתה את הבקשה לעיון מבלי לדון בבקשה לגופה, ומבלי לנמק את
ההחלטה. מצד אחד, השופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה לא היססה לתת החלטות חסרות שחר שהן
התערבות חסרת בסיס בחוק בנוהלי העבודה של המזכירות. לדוגמה - השופטת הילה גורביץ
עובדיה החליטה שאסור לי להגיש בנט המשפט "פניות למזכירות" למרות שהנהלת בתי המשפט
(וגם דו"ח מבקר המדינה) אומרים במפורש שתקשורת עם המזכירות היא חלק בלתי נפרד מתכלית
קיומה של נט המשפט...
השאלה המתבקשת היא: מדוע היה חשוב עד כדי כך לשופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה למנוע ממני הגשת
פניות למזכירות בנט המשפט?
דוגמה נוספת - השופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה החליטה שעל המזכירות לדחות מרישום כל הגשה שלישלא שולמה עבורה אגרת בקשה. אולם הנהלת בתי המשפט קבעה קטגוריות של בקשות הפטורות
מאגרה, ונט המשפט אינה מבקשת תשלום אגרה עבור החלטות מקטגוריות אלה (לדוגמה:
בקשות עיון, בקשות להמצאת החלטה, בקשות למתן החלטה, וכו'..).
השאלה המתבקשת היא: מדוע היה חשוב עד כדי כך לשופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה לפגוע בזכותי כבעלדין לגישה לבית המשפט?
מצד שני, כשהשופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה יודעת שהמזכירות לא תבצע בקשה כלשהי עקב הוראותהקבע של הנהלת בתי המשפט, היא לא מהססת להפנות את המבקש למזכירות...
המבקש רואה בהחלטת השופטת הילה גורביץ עובדיה החלטה שניתנה בהעדר תום לב ובהעדר הגינות
דיונית, הפרה של הזכויות הדיוניות החוקתיות - כולל הזכות להליך ראוי.
Disregard of European Guidelines: The development of Net HaMishpat ignored binding norms and foundational principles of court administration, including, in particular, guiding principles for the architecture of court case management systems that were published during those years in the European Union. In the years 2003–2005, the initial years of the accelerated development stage of Net HaMishpat, the first working documents and reports of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), established in 2002, were already published. These publications emphasized the norms that must apply to the development of systems of this type, first and foremost public transparency and encouraging the involvement of civil society organizations, in order to guarantee the rights of litigants, data protection, and the preservation of access to the courts. In 2005, an official policy of the European Union regarding the development of court case management systems was established and published by the European Commission. This policy emphasized the importance of implementing basic constitutional principles.
Revocation of Structural Integrity: The development of Net HaMishpat was accompanied by the revocation of the court regulations (Registry Office), 1936, and within that—the revocation of the authority of the Clerk of the Court as the person responsible for the custody of files and records as the Prothonotary—meaning, Net HaMishpat also represents a new model in court administration. The accepted model in English-speaking courts is that of a judicial arm and a secretarial arm, working through checks and balances are central to the safeguard of integrity of the courts. In Israel, a revolution on this matter began at the Supreme Court in 2002, without any public debate and, as far as is known, without a procedure that included entities outside the court. According to the model implemented in Net HaMishpat, judges were given authorities and permissions to perform various actions that would have been unthinkable in paper files. The case at hand, EF 11650-06-24 provides examples of the resulting abuse of right to be heard in a Competent Court of Record.
.
בקשת חוזרת טענה שהעיון בתיקים הוא עיון בתיקים, ולא עיון במאגרים המקובלים.
דו"ח מבקר המדינה מיום 17.2.2026 [1]:
- אימות חתימות לקוי: נמצא כי 77% מהאישורים שהונפקו על ידי המדינה ניתנו ללא אימות חתימות כנדרש באמנות בינלאומיות (כגון אמנת אפוסטיל).
- היעדר מאגר דוגמאות חתימה: למשרד החוץ חסרות דוגמאות חתימה של כ-45% ממורשי החתימה הממשלתיים, מה שמונע את היכולת לוודא את מהימנות המסמכים.
- פגיעה בכיס האזרח: הליקויים והסחבת באימוץ פתרונות דיגיטליים הובילו לכך שאזרחי ישראל שילמו כ-45 מיליון ש"ח מיותרים בשנת 2023 בלבד עבור שירותים שניתן היה לייעל.
- פרצה להונאות: המבקר הזהיר כי המצב הנוכחי "מזמין" תופעה של 'מאכערים', מאפשר זיוף מסמכים ויוצר פתח להונאות ומעילות בשל היעדר בקרה דיגיטלית הולמת.
[1] מבקר המדינה: ליקויים חמורים בפרויקט תעודות הזהות החכמות
https://www.pc.co.il/featured/386531/
2. אדובי - הקורא, הגרסה החינמית
.
הכתובת 172.20.13.19 היא כתובת IP השייכת לטווח הכתובות הפרטיות (Private IP) לפי תקן RFC 1918 (ספציפית בטווח של 172.16.0.0/12). כתובות אלו נחשבות לBogons כאשר הן מופיעות בתעבורה הציבורית של האינטרנט, כיוון שהן מיועדות לשימוש פנימי בלבד ולא אמורות להיות מנותבות (Routed) החוצה.
המשמעות של הממצא:
* זיהוי השרת: הכתובת הזו מייצגת שרת פנימי בתוך הרשת הממשלתית.* זמן החתימה הוא 2026/05/02 17:07:38 +0. זהו הזמן שבו עסקתי בהורדות של המסמכים. אבל פסק הדין מראה שנחתם ביום 21.5.2025.
המסקנה הסופית: החתימה התבצעה כנראה באופן אוטומטי, על ידי מכונה, במהלך ההורדה, ואינה חתימה הקשורה לאדם שהתכוון לחתום על המסמך עצמו במהלך מתן פסק הדין.
.
(1) מספר הח.פ. של הנהלת בתי המשפט - ID_500102173,
(2) כתובת IP, אבל מהסוג שהאקרים אוהבים - בוגון - Bogon - שלא הושם - 172.20.13.19.
28.4.2021 - אישור אוטומטי - "נאמן למקור" - "חתימה דיגיטלית"
H. Conclusion
The Crux of the Matter: A situation that allows documents whose legal validity is internally restricted to that of a mere "draft" to externally manifest as enforceable orders establishes arbitrary justice. This contradicts Israeli legislation and produces a critical systemic ambiguity.
The Alshech Precedent: The decision of the Ombudsman of the Israeli Judiciary in the affair of the "fabricated protocols" of Judge Varda Alshech provides a unique documentation of this structural failure. The Ombudsman and Judge Varda Alshech were in total agreement that this document, which was perceived by others as a valid and enforceable court record of a court of the State of Israel, is merely an invalid "draft." The electronic signature of the judge constitutes the real finalization of the protocol and its transformation from a "draft" document into a "finished" document.
Harmful Systemic Norms: Net HaMishpat created new, harmful norms. In his memoirs, Shimon Agranat, President of the Supreme Court (1965–1976), describes the situation at the Haifa Court in 1932. He attributes the adulteration of judgments and orders to the "mysterious hand," and these acts reflect, in his opinion, "the chronic disease of the courts – corruption." However, in 2002, after the fact changes became the new norm in the Israeli Supreme Court—"subject to editorial and phrasing changes." And Net HaMishpat made these acts much easier. The Varda Alshech affair established the new norm: acts that should have been classified as forgery, deceit, and breach of trust, are not a criminal offense at all.
The Actionable Remedy (The Academic Review): Dr. Zernik proposes a preliminary, brief, and immediate review of the integrity and soundness of the data and system infrastructure in Net HaMishpat by volunteers, who are computer science professors (and not legal scholars). Such a review can be based on data submitted by Dr. Zernik and/or Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari; it can be completed within a week or two, and its basic purpose is to render an opinion on two defined and narrow questions:
Is Net HaMishpat system a sound system for its purpose?
Is there a need to perform a comprehensive, independent review by State employees subject to appropriate arrangements?
Historical Precedents: This proposal is based on the independent, voluntary review of Diebold voting machines by computer science professors in 2003. A tradition of about 200 years in the West created a unique position for the academic faculty—public intellectuals. This role is the central purpose of academic freedom and tenure, as well as the special status granted to the academic campus. This tradition is recognized, starting with the "Göttingen Seven" (Germany, 1837), through the intellectuals' manifesto in the Dreyfus affair (France, 1898), the "Professors' Oath" (Spain, 1965), the electronic voting machines report (US, 2003), up to the law professors' letter to the Senate (US, 2023). A preliminary review of Net HaMishpat by university faculty members does not require the cooperation of the Administration of the Courts. It will immediately show that Net HaMishpat is a patently invalid system, and leave no doubt regarding the nature of Adv. Rachel Ben-Ari's actions.
Personal Note: In 2009, in Los Angeles, I tested the first system of this kind—Sustain. When the test results became clear to me, I turned to my uncle, the late Prof. Eli Shamir, and the late Prof. Michael Rabin, with a request to examine the results. There was no need for a Turing Award laureate to examine the results. However, due to the severe implications of the findings, I sought confirmation from the two who founded the first Computer Science Department in Israel. In 2010, it was also my uncle, the late Eli Shamir, who directed me to examine the courts' computers in Israel. Both passed away recently. And I hope that action by the universities according to my proposal will bring them satisfaction. There is no need for expertise at the level of computer professors to identify the severe failures in Net HaMishpat. The appeal to the professors is because their voice will be heard and will have an impact, where the voice of others has failed to cause any response, except for retaliation.
Links
[1] The complaint of the Bar Association and the decision of the Ombudsman of the Israeli Judiciary (88/12/Tel Aviv District) in the affair of the fabricated protocols of Judge Varda Alshech
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8Aa2xQGbmk5SUZuQlU5eXVIc2M
[2] Hague Apostille Convention: States that are party to the convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostille_Convention#States_that_are_party_to_the_convention
Appendices – To be sent over the coming days and presented online
Appendix 1: Electronic signatures in Net HaMishpat
Appendix 2: Decision of the Ombudsman of the Israeli Judiciary 88/12/Tel Aviv District (May 31, 2012) regarding Judge Varda Alshech and the protocols affair (2011);
Appendix 3: The affair of Judge Esperanza Alon and Adv. Tzadika, "double books" and the "Not Yet Signed" protocol at the Haifa Family Court (2013); tampered handling by the Courts Administration (2024) and the Office of the Deputy State Attorney (Criminal Affairs) (2025);
Appendix 4: The affair of Joelle Ben Simon, proceedings based on entirely invalid "draft" decisions, at the Jerusalem Family Court (2016);
Appendix 5: The Effi Naveh affair – media publications regarding a conviction, without a conviction in the file (2022);
Appendix 6: The routing of files to judges, and actions allegedly lacking jurisdiction;
Appendix 7: Informal register of the processes in the file, in which about 25% of the registered processes are hidden from the access of Respondent 1;
Appendix 8: Service allegedly lacking validity;
Appendix 9: Intentionally tampered protocol and judgment, lacking validity; a "certified order" (psikta) which Dr. Zernik claims is a sham court document, meaning a document that is not a court document, a document lacking validity—a central fraud in the proceedings;
Appendix 10: The inability to collect charges supposedly created in TE 11650-06-24;
Appendix 11: Badge of fraud #38 – "The Smoking Gun and the Black Flag";
Appendix 12: The history of Application #72;
Appendix 13: The history of Application #79.
No comments:
Post a Comment